Does anyone feel like the wealth of information provided by the documents in the Harvard study would change their child’s chances at Harvard or how they would approach the college process? If so, how so? If not, why not?
Data, yes they correlate well. But that alone doesn’t explain what they’re working with and how they determine rating numbers. Or just how ratings play.
Any 10 kids with equal ratings are not equal in terms of final chances. Can the studies explain holistic? I think not. And I regret H didn’t explain more of this part.
^No one argue that the observed data by themselves explain everything. The correlation is highly positive so the data do explain most of the results. There’s a human element that the data can’t fully capture. For example, how the committee members vote, or whether and when a dean or director exercises his/her overrides. Unless the decisions by the committee, or the dean or director, are totally arbitrary, the data should capture patterns that help explain these decisions. Being holistic isn’t the same as being arbitrary, as I’m sure you agree.
As mentioned numerous times, the models form both sides of the lawsuit did successfully explain the majority of variance in the holistic admissions decisions at Harvard. They correctly predicted decisions for the vast majority of applicants within the sample and were even better at predicting the admit rate for specific subgroups of applicants. One of the key reasons why the models were so predictive is that the included the reader ratings of applicants. Obviously realize reader ratings do not reflect all aspects of the holistic decisions. However, not being able to explain 100% of variance with correct predictions for 100% of applicants does not invalidate the conclusions.
Instead conclusions have varied strengths and statistical significances based on the limitations from the imperfect information. When the difference between groups is large, one can still make reliable conclusions in spite of the missing elements. For example, the difference between athletes & legacies vs non-ALDC is large enough that one can say with near certainty that Harvard displays a strong preference for athletes and legacies, in spite of only being able to explain the majority of variance in decisions, rather than 100% perfect.
Using a real example, approximately 18,000 non-ALDC applicants received a 4 academic rating. Of those 18k only 3 were accepted, resulting in an acceptance rate of 0.02%. 80% of athletes who received the same rating were accepted . Athletes had a ~5000x greater rate of acceptance. The studies found that a similar degree of preference for other combinations. Among applicants who received lower ratings, they estimated that athletes had an average of a ~5500x greater chance of admission than a non-athletes who received the same ratings, had the same hook status, same application region, same concentration, etc. Given the sample size, the confidence level was 99.99999999… (over one thousand 9s)% confidence that athletes receive an admissions advantage.
If you are referencing the lawsuit, both sides of the lawsuit provided numerous documents and information discussing more holistic and subjective aspects of the admission decision and what elements were missing from the statistical models. Such documents did not get a lot of attention because saying you can’t know for sure because it’s holistic is not a convincing or accurate position.
How are you sure kids from Connecticut are far more likely to apply? Do you have any data showing kids from Connecticut are more likely to apply at anywhere near the ratio necessary to explain the 16x disparity?
Yale is located in Connecticut. In every set of application distributions I’ve ever seen, the college’s home state is notably overrepresented among applicants.
For example, on the previous page there is a link to a Harvard OIR document showing the distribution of Harvard applicants by region. 9% of Harvard applicants were from MA, even though only 2% of persons in the US are from MA. That is a dramatic overrperesentation among applicants. The reverse happens for the south (they don’t list Alabama and Kentucky specifically). Harvard gets fewer applicants from southern states than expected based on population distribution.
I don’t see how I can take a fuller view of application material to which I have no access. It reminds me of the Chico Marx question, “Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”
Interestingly, in response to the question posed by Sue22, the information that is out there about the Harvard policy would probably have been helpful to me in assessing the Harvard admissions chances of the young Asian-Americans I know. I underestimated the likelihood of admissions for two of them (not that I communicated this to anyone). They were admitted. I suspect that they had academic ratings of 1, and accordingly had personal ratings that correlated with the interviewer’s commentary.
The information that I mentioned about discordant personal ratings and interviewers’ comments for Asian American applicants to Harvard was quite specific about the academic categories that Harvard uses (1-5) and not about deciles. The discord was in academic categories 2-5 (not that there were likely to be many Asian-American applicants in category 5). It’s always possible that the journalist was mistaken.
In response to your question, @Sue22, I think any rational adult would change application strategy after this data disclosure. If 43% of white admits are hooked, and one is not hooked, then frankly it makes very little sense to spend an early action decision on Harvard with realistically no hope,and perhaps much more sense to apply ED to Vandy or Rice or even EA at MIT, where one may have a greater chance. Rational decision making relies upon data. Those with an academic rating of 4 could have saved their admission fee if they were not athletes, and probably would have if they had been told their chance was less than 1 in 4000.
Does anyone else wonder why, if only the annointed group of insiders with access to unredacted files is able to understand the admissions decisions, there are not more esteemed admissions professionals on the committees? At least at Oxford, the faculty themselves choose who to admit. Here, few working in admissions offices have extensive educational or other credentials. None of the senior educational deans or officers participate. Shouldn’t there be extensive selection and training for such folks who are making such decisions if they are relying on nebulous criteria?
That’s a 4.5x ratio, not a 16x one. Looking at page 16 of the OIR document, MA has an admit rate of 12%, NY has an admit rate of 10%, and the rest of the country has an admit rate in the 6-8% band. More students from NY and MA apply because they expect to have higher odds of admissions than the kids from Alabama and Kentucky, even excluding the legacies and athletes.
Note that I also mentioned southern states were underrepresented. Assuming the census definition of southern states with Texas excluded, it looks like a ~2x underrepresentation among applicants. So comparing MA to southern states, one would expect ~4.5x~2 = ~9x larger number of applications from equal population areas. If you consider differences hook rates among in home state residents (Yale legacies are more likely to be located in Connecticut than Alabama), and differences in rates of early applications, that matriculation expectation would start to get closer to the referenced 16x figure for Yale. Yale might be expected to have more extreme differences than Harvard given how much smaller and lower population Connecticut is than MA.
The point is differences in number of applicants is one of the most influential factors in differences in number of matriculants, if not the most influential. It’s difficult to draw conclusions without knowing something about the number of applicants from those states.
The confusing factor in the CT/Yale example cited is staff/faculty children. I don’t know how the tuition deal works right now- perhaps someone else on here does- but back in the day, any Yale employee who had a kid with any sort of chance of getting admitted would apply. If admitted, Yale would be significantly cheaper than any other option, including U Conn (Storrs not really commutable from the New Haven metro area). That gave Yale “first dibs” on local kids (which is always good for town/gown relations) who were also employee kids (which is always good for morale). Yale is currently the largest employer in CT so you are talking a LOT of employee kids in any given year!
“Actually, they did incorporate athletics into admissions to keep what they considered the riff-raff at the time out. Harvard’s original foray into holistic admissions was driven by anti-semitism.“
Do you have a cite for this? My understanding is that the awful anti-semitic admissions policies kicked into full force the 1910’s or so, but lacrosse dates back to the late 1800’s. I could be wrong. Not sure when squash came on to the scene. I don’t dispute the bigger point that “elite” sports have a discriminatory effect today. And that is very very wrong. I just don’t think there is a broad conspiracy to keep sports white.
The many fantastic articles in @OHMomof2’s posts point out the many ways the sports industrial complex hurts everyone, especially low SES. The entire pre-college sports machine is predicated on the notion that sports are the sole remaining ticket to admission at these schools. So higher SES are spending gobs of money on that pipe dream.
The market is responding to more demand and less supply. Focusing on “white sports” is a rational parental response to the reality that fewer spots are available to average exceptional students in the higher SES pool, now that lower SES and urms have risen in preference.
The schools’ growing preference for diversity (which to be clear I support emphatically) drives the parents who can afford it to focus on “white sports” and camps and tutoring and test prep etc. — any possible edge that money can buy to get Johnny into an Ivy. That is no secret. I’ve heard parents come out and say that is why they chose a particular sport for their kid. It isn’t a school preference for rich white people that is causing all of this. The result may look like it on the surface, but that doesn’t seem to me the way the causal arrow is pointing.
At the end of the day, this is all about money. Winning teams bring in money. Yes, there are academic standards to maintain, but I have no doubt that there are a ton of qualified low SES athletes out there who just need to be found. Amherst is finding them (see article posted by @OHMomof2). The rest will follow when they lose enough games.
Honestly, I am more worried that k-12 education is so chronically underfunded (by the higher SES who can send kids to private schools) that lower SES kids are far less likely to be “qualified “. That is the bottleneck to worry about - not because of elite admissions per se, but because of the greater impact on the US as a whole.
At Harvard, the admit rate for children of faculty and staff was 47%. Being a child of faculty or staff at Harvard was a major hook, similar to being a legacy. If Yale operates anything like Harvard, then I would expect that, not the scholarship program, to be the primary driver of increased applications. Being the child of Yale faculty and staff is its own form of privilege. If children of faculty and staff had the same below 5% admit rate as the rest of the unhooked applicant pool, I would expect applications from that group to plummet.
Here’s a history of Harvard’s holistic admissions and it’s ugly. There’s a difference between when Harvard first had sports and when they made them part of the admissions process.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-discriminating-against-jews-2014-12
“Honestly, I am more worried that k-12 education is so chronically underfunded (by the higher SES who can send kids to private schools) that lower SES kids are far less likely to be “qualified “. That is the bottleneck to worry about - not because of elite admissions per se, but because of the greater impact on the US as a whole.”
Cate- great post, could not agree more. For every kid on CC worried that they can “only” take AB Calc because BC conflicts with something else, there are hundreds of kids in HS’s in America who don’t have calculus at all- and can barely get through trig because the last competent math teacher quit three years ago and was replaced by someone who is barely one chapter ahead of the class.
I know a teacher like this. Highly motivated, wants to do right by the kids, deeply committed to equity in education. But ended up by default teaching HS math- a subject where her knowledge of pedagogy and classroom management far exceeds her talents at-- y’know- math.
Tragic.
While obtaining qualified math teachers is a challenge, obtaining students who are interested or even willing to learn math when raised in dysfunctional and often impoverished environments with a lack of emphasis on education or appropriate role models presents an overwhelming obstacle. As my friend teaching in a title 1 school notes sadly, Jesus himself couldn’t save some of these kids. But that is for a different thread.
“I think any rational adult…” But these are kids, talking of dreams.
And, “…if only the annointed group of insiders with access to unredacted files is able to understand the admissions decisions…”
Not. But it rounds out the view. I can’t imagine why one wouldn’t want more.
And, “…They correctly predicted decisions for the vast majority of applicants…” but not for individuals. Yes, you note subpools, but not what makes one kid valued over another, get the nod, for not-obvious-in-studies reasons other than preference or elitism. Thus, some posters “prove” their opinions with an incomplete picture.
The focus here seems to be on groups, what that can tell us or predict- and a certainty there’s something untoward going on. (Dont miss the comments that studies ultimately prove H is elitest.)
No one should need to reach back 100 years to explain a very different situation today.
Dreams that Harvard encourages with glossy marketing material aimed at kids, right? Material that doesn’t actually spell out the reality that if your SAT score is below 1200, please save your money by not applying unless you are an athlete. Plenty of us “want more” disclosed regarding the process, but the colleges themselves refuse to do so and fight disclosure vigorously, guaranteeing an incomplete picture. Dont complain about the lack of completeness when your institutionsm is one of those responsible for it
Looking, you seem unwilling to concede that any sort of rating system by definition is evaluative, and therefore comes to the conclusion that A is “better” than B (not better in a moral sense, but better for the purposes of the relevant assessment).
I don’t believe anything “untoward” is going on, just for the record. Harvard can admit the class it wants, as long as it’s obeying the law which apparently it has been doing.
The fact that it is trying to thread a very fine needle-- finger on the scale when it chooses and for whom it chooses, while trying to preserve an aura of “we want the absolute best and brightest whether in the lab, the classroom, on the concert stage, etc. and money will not be an obstacle to those kids enrolling” makes it laughable that you think folks need to actually see the admissions file. Most of us know nice, capable kids (paraphrasing Dorothy Parker) with intellectual depth ranging from A to B, who were admitted to Harvard in the last few years. The presence of a dozen or fifty of them is fine- Harvard has a crackerjack team fanning out across the world, knowing who is interested in endowing a chair in neuroscience, and who is interested in an interdisciplinary center for studying climate change or urban transportation solutions. Terrific.
Just don’t be coy about it. And for you to claim that some of these kids- again, nice and capable, but far below the bar of what we can all observe is the typical Harvard admit- many of whom need gobs of money to attend-- have somehow pulled together an application that shows off their true love of 19th century poetry, their skill composing a concerto, or humanitarian interests that put Mother Theresa to shame- is hilarious. We don’t need to see the applications. We KNOW these kids. Nice and rich, or nice and legacy AND rich. They are “Harvard material” in the sense of the 1940’s Harvard man- the classic Gentleman C back in the day.
Again- fine. But don’t be coy about it.